Many Democrats viewed the speech as an attempt by a foreign
leader to chastise and change Washington’s foreign policy
efforts, specifically with regards to Iran over its alleged
efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu criticized the Obama administration, saying its efforts
to negotiate a deal with Tehran “will not prevent Iran from
developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran
gets those weapons, lots of them.”

Obama said Netanyahu didn’t offer any “viable
alternatives” to the nuclear negotiations with Iran, while
adding “there was nothing new” in the speech. However,
there were some things Netanyahu failed to mention that deserve
brief consideration.

Here are five of them.

5. Iran has taken sides with Jewish people in the past

At the beginning of his speech to US lawmakers, Netanyahu set the
stage for some heated Iran fear-mongering by citing a page from
ancient history. He recounted the misdeeds of a Persian viceroy
named Haman “who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some
2,500 years ago.” However, the plot was foiled by the
intervention of Queen Esther and the Jewish people were saved
from the evil machinations of an Iranian tyrant.

But wasn’t Netanyahu cherry-picking his choice of historical
legend to strengthen his argument against Tehran? After all, he
could just as easily pointed to a much more recent historical
episode involving the Jewish people and the Persians, and one
that does not reflect so negatively on Iran.

Two thousand years after the above-mentioned incident, in 539 BC,
the Persian king Cyrus conquered Babylon practically without
bloodshed, thus freeing the Israelites from their long captivity.
Clearly, Cyrus was not your average warlord. The tolerant king
and his successors permitted the Jews the freedom of worship, as
well as allowing them to return home from exile and rebuild the
temple. According to historian Michael Axworthy (“Iran:
Empire of the Mind,” 2007), this act of generosity did not
go unnoticed. In Jewish scripture, Cyrus acquired a “unique
status” among Gentile monarchs, he noted.

Although it may seem ridiculous to harp on ancient history in
such a modern context, as Netanyahu did, it is important to
remember that there have been historical examples of goodwill on
the part of the Iranians towards the Jewish people, and
vice-versa. There is no reason to suggest that such an atmosphere
of trust could not prevail once again between the two countries.

Instead, Netanyahu called Iran a "threat to the entire
world".

4. Iraq was (wrongly) attacked for WMDs

Netanyahu’s address to US Congress was liberally littered with
apocalyptic allusions to Iran, a country that “cannot be
trusted,” blaming it for a future “nuclear
nightmare.” However, the Israeli leader’s speech
conspicuously ignored the tragic tale of another country that
once featured high on his hit list and for eerily similar
reasons.

On September 2, 2002, one year after the terrorist attacks of
9/11, Netanyahu, speaking this time as a private citizen and
“expert” before US Congress, warned US lawmakers about the
nuclear ambitions of another apparent Middle East belligerent,
the Baathist regime of Iraq.

“With no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is
working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear
weapons. No question whatsoever…Saddam is hell bent on achieving
atomic capabilities as soon as he can.”

Did Netanyahu believe that inspections would prevent Iraq from
obtaining the weapons they were allegedly seeking? No, he didn’t.
“I believe that free and unfettered inspections will not
uncover these portable manufacturing sites of mass death,”
he told US Congress members.

However, the question of whether or not regular inspections would
have worked to contain Iraq’s alleged nuclear aspirations turned
out to be a moot point because no such facilities to develop
nuclear weapons of mass destruction were ever discovered in Iraq.
This is exactly what UN weapons inspectors were saying in the
weeks and months leading up to the full-blown invasion.

On March 19, 2003, the United States launched a massive military
offensive against Iraq, dropping thousands of pounds of ordnance
on the Arab nation over a 10-year period, which has culminated in
the death of an estimated 135,810-153,446 civilians, according to
Iraqi
Body Count.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu has been actively portraying Iran as a
potential nuclear threat for over 20 years.

In 1992, while serving as an Israeli parliamentarian, Netanyahu
warned his colleagues that Tehran is about 5 years from producing
a nuclear weapon, and that the threat must be "uprooted by an
international front headed by the US."

Now, given that Netanyahu, as well as many other world leaders at
the time of the Iraq War, including Tony Blair and George W.
Bush, was so patently wrong concerning the threat allegedly posed
by Iraq back in 2002, the question must be asked why he was
allowed to speak before US Congress concerning Iran’s present
nuclear ambitions.

Whatever the case may be, Netanyahu’s much-discussed speech
provided convenient ground cover for some controversial
legislation that passed that day, including full funding for the
Department of Homeland Security, which now heads to Obama’s desk
for his expected signature. So Obama at least got something from
the Netanyahu visit.

3. Israel has nuclear weapons and Iran is not suicidal

Netanyahu’s speech left the impression of a helpless Jewish state
on the verge of annihilation by a hostile neighbor. “Iran's
regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the
peace of the entire world,” he warned. He then made a bit of
stretch, comparing the Islamic Republic of Iran, a nation that
does enjoy a high level of culture, as well as intelligent,
educated people, to the most loathsome group of fundamentalists
on the global stage today, the Islamic State.

“Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam.
One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the
Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire
first on the region and then on the entire world. They just
disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that
empire.”

“In this deadly game of thrones, there's no place for America
or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don't
share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no
freedom for anyone.”

Personally, I have never heard that Iran is keen on establishing
an Islamic caliphate across the Middle East.

But even if some Iranian mullahs really had vocalized such a
desire, uttering such things and actually carrying them out are
two entirely different matters. Israel not only possesses the
most powerful military in the Middle East, it enjoys an
“unbreakable bond” with the United States, the world’s
superpower.

Furthermore, although it has never publicly come out of the
closet on the subject, Israel is believed to possess hundreds of
nuclear weapons, as well as a state-of-the-art missile defense
system to protect its territory from attack.

Meanwhile, it is simply farcical to believe that Iran, in the
event that it did somehow acquire nuclear weapons, would
immediately initiate a nuclear strike on Israel. Just like every
other nuclear-armed power in the world, Tehran would fully
understand the dire consequences of such an action, which would
include its own immediate destruction. This is not an argument to
support Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons, but rather to simply
state the logic of “mutually assured destruction” that
prevents any government from resorting to these weapons.

It is no coincidence that the only time nuclear weapons have been
employed in the past came at a time when only one country was in
possession of them.

2. Iran (has not been) an aggressor state

In an effort to prove that Iran cannot handle the responsibility
that comes with nuclear energy development, Netanyahu painted a
stark picture of the Islamic Republic as a menace to global
peace.

“This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its
voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year…If
Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it's under
sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when
sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has
mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?”

Although Netanyahu readily makes a loose connection between Iran
and the ongoing events in Lebanon and Syria (namely the arming of
Hezbollah, which Israel regards as terrorist organization), which
has incurred several direct attacks on its territory by Israeli
forces, nowhere is the question of Israel seizing Palestinian
territory brought into the equation. Indeed, the lack of a peace
agreement that would give the Palestinian people their own
much-anticipated state is largely to blame for much of the
problems now plaguing the Middle East.

And once again, the Israeli leader connects Iran with the likes
of Islamic State.

“The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives,
captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed
with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We
must always remember - I'll say it one more time - the greatest
dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with
nuclear weapons.”

Here is how Axworthy describes the social and cultural reality of
Iran, which is quite far; it seems, from a country that practices
a “militant Islam.”

“Iran is commonly thought of as a homogenous nation, with a
strong national culture, but minorities like the Azeris, Kurds,
Gilakis, Baluchis, Turkmen and others make up nearly half of the
population….Iranian families have released their daughters to
study and work in unprecedented numbers, such that over 60
percent of university students now are female and many women
(even married women) have professional jobs. Iran has preserved
some of the most stunning Islamic architecture in the
world…”

How many people are aware that literature and poetry ranks high
in Iranian culture?

“Iranians glory in their literary heritage and above all in
their poetry, to a degree one finds in few other countries, with
the possible exception of Russia.”

Does this sound like the sort of society that has a nuclear death
wish? Moreover, Iranian clerics have declared that Islam forbids
the development and use of all weapons of mass destruction.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental
religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of
weapons of mass destruction," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the
nation's "supreme leader, said recently. ”In contrast to the
propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any
production of weapons of mass destruction in any form."

Finally, while the United States, for example, has interfered in
the internal affairs of dozens of sovereign states since 1945,
Iran has not initiated the invasion of another country since -
are you sitting down? -1798.

1. Iran was becoming more liberal before the 2003 Iraq War

Although many people are readily familiar with the former
president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his numerous
belligerent outbursts against the United States and Israel, few
may remember that his predecessor was a soft spoken scholar and
theologian by the name of Mohammad Khatami, who ruled from 1997
to 2005.

During his two terms as president, Khatami, a popular liberal
reformer, advocated on behalf of freedom of expression, tolerance
and civil society. Suddenly, Iran's foreign policy began moving
from outright confrontation to conciliation.

Khatami initiated (in response to American academic Samuel P.
Huntington’s seminal work, “The Clash of Civilizations,” which
argued pessimistically that the world was heading for turmoil
along cultural-religious fault-lines, as opposed to ideological)
a refreshing proposal for A Dialogue among Civilizations. As a
result, the United Nations proclaimed the year 2001 as the Year
of Dialogue to bring about peace among countries.

Khatami’s groundbreaking work, however, was largely derailed
after the United States, with the vocal support of Israel, opened
up a wholly illegitimate invasion of Iraq (and despite global
protests in Western capitals against the action), thus triggering
a renewed wave of fear and anti-Western attitudes in Iran and
elsewhere.

It is interesting to consider that Netanyahu’s present efforts to
bring greater international pressure to bear on Iran over its
perceived nuclear ambitions may never have been necessary had the
disastrous invasion of Iraq not occurred back in 2003, which
succeeded in radically altering the political calculus in Iran,
then heading towards a period of liberalism, and ratcheting up
tensions between Tehran and the Western world to unprecedented
levels.